DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, GUJRANWALA And Other vs ANWAR
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had allowed a service appeal filed by the respondent. The respondent, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (A.S.-I.) in the Punjab Police, had been denied seniority and promotion alongside his batchmates due to a pending inquiry and an alleged failure to cross the efficiency bar. Upon exoneration in the inquiry, the respondent sought his due seniority and promotion. The Service Tribunal determined that since the respondent was exonerated and the punishments involved were of a minor nature, he could not be legally deprived of his seniority and promotion rights relative to his batchmates. The Supreme Court reviewed the Tribunal's judgment and concluded that the decision was based on relevant considerations and facts. Finding that no question of law of public importance was involved, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's order, thereby upholding the respondent's entitlement to seniority and promotion.
- Can a police officer be denied seniority and promotion based on an inquiry in which they were subsequently exonerated?
- Does the failure to cross an efficiency bar justify the denial of seniority and promotion if the officer is otherwise exonerated of pending charges?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a judgment of the Service Tribunal regarding service seniority?
ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 28-11-1996, passed by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, allowing service appeal filed by respondent No. 1, against denying him due seniority and promotions alongwith his batchmates appointed as A.S.-Is. In to Punjab Police.
2. The respondent was appointed as A.S.-I. In the Police Department alongwith others. Thereafter, his batchmates were confirmed as A.S.-Is. From 1-12-1973, but the respondent was not confirmed with his batchmates and was confirmed with effect from 23-7-1979, and because of it he was also denied further promotions in the department alongwith his batchmates, on the ground that there was an inquiry pending against him. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent was exonerated in the inquiry. He, however, contended that since the promotion of the respondent was withheld because of his failing to cross the efficiency bar he was not entitled to the seniority and promotion etc. As claimed by him.
3. The Service Tribunal duly considered the very contentions raised by the learned counsel before us and found that as the respondent was exonerated in the inquiry -and the said punishments were of minor nature, therefore, under the rules, he could not be deprived of his seniority and promotions alongwith his batchmates and allowed the appeal with certain consequential directions. Hence, this petition by the Department.
4. We have gone through the judgment of the Tribunal, and we are of the view that the same has been passed by the Tribunal on relevant considerations, and no question of law of public importance is involved to call for interference by this Court.